Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Left wing economics works

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 1
Description
left wing ideas can work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlAR1I1sVCg
Round 1
Published:
"By Matt Bruenig, who writes about politics, the economy, and political theory, with a focus on issues that affect poor and working people. He has written for The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic, The American Prospect, In These Times, Jacobin, Dissent, Salon, The Week, Gawker and at his home base of sorts: Demos’ Policy Shop. Follow him on Twitter: @mattbruenig. Originally published at his website
This post was originally intended for the launch of the People’s Policy Project website. But as that is running behind schedule, I figure I will post it here.
When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.

As marvelous as the Nordic welfare states are, the outsized attention they receive can sometimes lead commentators to the wrong conclusions about the peculiarities of Nordic economies. Jonathan Chait thinks the Nordic economies feature an “amped-up version of … neoliberalism” while an oddly large number of conservative and libertarian writers claim the Nordics are quasi-libertarian.
The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.
Labor Market
But this is not true. In addition to their large welfare states and high tax levels, Nordic economies are also home to large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contracts.
Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.



Centrally-bargained union contracts establish the work rules and pay scales for the vast majority of Nordic workers.

These labor market characteristics are hardly neoliberal or quasi-libertarian, at least if we stick to typical definitions of those terms. The neoliberal tendency, as exemplified most recently by France’s Emmanuel Macron, is to cut public sector jobsreduce job protections, and push for local rather than centralized labor agreements. For the US labor market to become more like the Nordics, it would have to move in the opposite direction on all of those fronts.
State Ownership
Even more interesting than Nordic labor market institutions is Nordic state ownership. Collective ownership over capital is the hallmark of that old-school socialism that is supposed to have been entirely discredited. And yet, such public ownership figures prominently in present-day Norway and Finland and has had a role in the other two Nordic countries as well, especially in Sweden where the government embarked upon a now-defunct plan to socialize the whole of Swedish industry into wage-earner funds just a few decades ago.
The governments of Norway and Finland own financial assets equal to 330 percent and 130 percent of each country’s respective GDP. In the US, the same figure is just 26 percent.

Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership. I disagree with the claim that wealth funds are not really state ownership, but the observation that Nordic countries feature high levels of state ownership does not turn upon this quibble.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs), defined as commercial enterprises in which the state has a controlling stake or large minority stake, are also far more prevalent in the Nordic countries. In 2012, the value of Norwegian SOEs was equal to 87.9 percent of the country’s GDP. For Finland, that figure was 52.3 percent. In the US, it was not even 1 percent.

Some of these SOEs are businesses often run by states: a postal service, a public broadcasting channel, an Alcohol retail monopoly. But others are just normal businesses typically associated with the private sector.
In Finland, where I know the situation the best, there are 64 state-owned enterprises, including one called Solidium that operates as a holding company for the government’s minority stake in 13 of the companies.
The Finnish state-owned enterprises include an airliner called Finnair; a wine and spirits maker called Altia; a marketing communications company called Nordic Morning; a large construction and engineering company called VR; and an $8.8 billion oil company called Neste.
In Norway, the state manages direct ownership of 70 companies. The businesses include the real estate company Entra; the country’s largest financial services group DNB; the 30,000-employee mobile telecommunications company Telenor; and the famous state-owned oil company Statoil.
Finland and Norway have their special reasons for the level of state ownership they engage in. Finnish government publications discuss the country’s late development and status as a peripheral country when justifying their relatively heavy public involvement in industry. That is, Finland does not want to expose the entirety of its marginal, late-developing, open economy to the potential ravages of international capital flows.
In Norway, the discovery of oil in the North Sea was the impetus for the creation of its enormous social wealth fund. The fund currently owns around $950 billion of assets throughout the world, including more than $325 billion of assets inside the US. In a video on the Norwegian central bank’s website, the fund is described as follows: “It is the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.”
No one would argue that the Nordic countries are full-blown socialist countries, whatever that might mean. But it is also folly to pretend the only thing they have proven is that high taxes and large welfare states can work. Even on the narrow understanding of socialism as public ownership of enterprise, the Nordic countries are far more socialistic than most commentators seem to realize. American socialists who draw inspiration from their successes do so rightly.


This entry was posted in Economic fundamentalsEuropeFree markets and their discontentsGuest PostSocial policySocial values on July 29, 2017 by .
SPONSORED CONTENT"
i am not a plagerist https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/07/matt-bruenig-nordic-socialism-realer-think.html words i have the best words i have the best proof
they words might not be minse but they are reflactions of the reality i wish to express   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlAR1I1sVCg&t=10s sweden works with left wing policy
Published:
I'll be playing Devil's Advocate in this debate.

Rebuttals

Since Pro is the instigator, is pro, and is the one making a case I give him the BOP. If I negate his points, I win the debate. I do not have to present a negative case.

Firstly, and most importantly, Con did not present an argument. Con presented assertions, such as: 

sweden works with left wing policy 
And did not use any reasoning himself .The vast majority of his argument is an argument from Matt Bruenig on nakedcapitalism.com, which he technically plagiarized (despite his claim that he did not) due to him not including quotation marks around the article. I do not feel obligated to respond to this argument, because he did not construct it. 

His second argument, that Sweden works with left wing policy, is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution of this debate is: 

Left wing economics works
"Works" is a general statement. Just because left wing economics may have "worked" in Sweden, does not mean they will anywhere else. If a broken hammer can hit one nail in, does the hammer somehow "work"?

As a counterexample, the Soviet economy had been going through a collapse for some time [1], and Venezuela's economy is going through a collapse as well, partially due to the generous spending of it's recently socialist leaders [2]. 

Why vote Con?

To summarize, Pro: 

- Made no arguments of his own 
- Plagiarized 
- Used instances of completely incomprehensible grammar such as: 

 words i have the best words i have the best proof
they words might not be minse but they are reflactions of the reality i wish to express
That is all for now. 

SOURCES: 
Round 2
Published:
How am i supposed to prove my point unless i quote a source? say just look at sweden? high taxes big welfare state strong unions ? Norway has state industry and a huge sovereign wealth fund, all nordic states have huge bureaucracies 1 in 3 people in denamrk and norway work for the state? I've already proven these points and there is lots of proof this system works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_lnKjTqwww&t=2s even conservative admit its a good system there are lots of leftish nations with good economies i have proof the best proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfANf1I4sUQ&t=11s
china is run by communists so i would say they are left wing and although they have reformed their communist economy with many  market reforms , but its still very state owned and directed meaning its still very socialist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WKLskz1w9k
https://www.quora.com/Is-China-still-socialist-in-any-meaningful-way china is still socialist and it economy is still strong 
"The country's economy expanded at an average rate of 9.5 percent over the last 40 years, far beyond the world economy's 2.9 percent in the same period. And its GDP rose from 367.9 billion yuan in 1978 to 82.71 trillion yuan in 2017, while its per-capita GDP saw a 22.8-fold growth to 59,660 yuan over the same time span, lifting China from the notch of world's low-income to middle-income countries.
As the second-largest economy in the world since 2010 when China surpassed Japan, the country accounted for around 15 percent of world economy in 2017, up 13 percentage points from 1978.
From 1978 to 2017, China's state revenue increased from 113.2 billion to 17 trillion yuan, while the country's gross national income per-capita rose from 1978's $200 to $8,250 in 2016. China cut the number of rural poor from 770 million to 30.46 million over the past 40 years.
China's industrial structure has continued to optimize and its economic growth has been driven by consumption, investment and export. At the same time, China has recorded the largest foreign reserve in the world."http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/chinaecoachievement40years/index.html
are debates about who is most clever or who has the best ideas?

"The country's economy expanded at an average rate of 9.5 percent over the last 40 years, far beyond the world economy's 2.9 percent in the same period. And its GDP rose from 367.9 billion yuan in 1978 to 82.71 trillion yuan in 2017, while its per-capita GDP saw a 22.8-fold growth to 59,660 yuan over the same time span, lifting China from the notch of world's low-income to middle-income countries.
As the second-largest economy in the world since 2010 when China surpassed Japan, the country accounted for around 15 percent of world economy in 2017, up 13 percentage points from 1978.
From 1978 to 2017, China's state revenue increased from 113.2 billion to 17 trillion yuan, while the country's gross national income per-capita rose from 1978's $200 to $8,250 in 2016. China cut the number of rural poor from 770 million to 30.46 million over the past 40 years.
China's industrial structure has continued to optimize and its economic growth has been driven by consumption, investment and export. At the same time, China has recorded the largest foreign reserve in the world.


The per-capita GDP has grown exponentially. China spent 10 years lifting the number from 468 yuan in 1980 to 1,663 yuan in 1990, while the figure reached 59,660 yuan in 2017 from 50,251 yuan two years ago."      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/chinaecoachievement40years/index.html
and lets not forget which state has the most prosperous economy is massachsetts the most liberal state https://usprosperity.net/   https://www.homesnacks.net/most-liberal-states-in-america-1219947/

Published:
How am i supposed to prove my point unless i quote a source?
What you are supposed to do is summarize the points of a given source you are citing and then cite the source like so: 

A 13 year old who killed 2 people was put back in in jail after escaping. He had been imprisoned inside Cumberland Regional Juvenile Detention Center. [1] 
What you are doing is using the entire source as an argument without saying anything of your own (which is immoral because you are forcing your opponent to read your entire source instead of the impacts of your source). It is also something literally no one does inside debate. 

Another thing you seem to be doing is saying arguments and not citing sources whatsoever. 

 say just look at sweden? high taxes big welfare state strong unions ? Norway has state industry and a huge sovereign wealth fund, all nordic states have huge bureaucracies 1 in 3 people in denamrk and norway work for the state? I've already proven these points
Where is your source?
You may have cited it last argument, but you certainly did not cite it this argument. You also provided a gish gallop of arguments, which is poor debate conduct. You had 8 total arguments in those couple sentences. 

I also think that Pro's claim that Sweden's economies are overwhelmingly left-wing is false. Sure, there may be high levels of state ownership of business and a large state presence in the labor market, but businesses are given extreme leniency [2], the general state control of the economy is much lower than the US and has been lowering for some time, which should be noted since my source is more recent than Con's source, [3]  and Nordic healthcare provides for Co-Payments and Deductibles [1]. 

Also, we can look at a truly left-wing economy in Argentina, and see it's failures. According to my [1]st source:

If we want to look at an economy which is undoubtedly left-wing, like Argentina, we can see the issues with this. According to my [1]st source: 
• Higher personal and corporate tax rates, and higher government spending
• More worker protections restricting the ability of companies to hire and fire, and less flexibility for companies to set wages based on worker productivity and/or to hire foreign labor 
• More reliance on regulation, more constraints on real estate development, more anti-trust enforcement and more state intervention in product markets; and a shift away from a shareholder-centric business model
• More protections for workers and domestic industries through tariff and non-tariff barriers, and more constraints on capital inflows and outflows
I couldn’t find any country that ticked all these democratic socialist boxes, but I did find one that came close: Argentina, which has defaulted 7 times since its independence in 1816, which has seen the largest relative standard of living decline in the world since 1900, and which is on the brink of political and economic chaos again in 2019... A real-life proof of concept for a successful democratic socialist society, like the Lost City of Atlantis, has yet to be found.

 there is lots of proof this system works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_lnKjTqwww&t=2s

Once again, this is you not using your own arguments and simply adding a source. "There is lots of proof this system works" is not sufficient reasoning. You have to explain why so I can look in these areas in your source. As I've said, not doing this is poor conduct. 

even conservative admit its a good system there are lots of leftish nations with good economies i have proof the best proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfANf1I4sUQ&t=11s
See above. 

As for your China argument, you concede that China has made market reforms over the past couple years. Are these reforms responsible for China's recent economic success? According to Mohsin S. Khan, the answer is yes [4]:

In 1978, after years of state control of all productive assets, the government of China embarked on a major program of economic reform. In an effort to awaken a dormant economic giant, it encouraged the formation of rural enterprises and private businesses, liberalized foreign trade and investment, relaxed state control over some prices, and invested in industrial production and the education of its workforce. By nearly all accounts, the strategy has worked spectacularly.

While pre-1978 China had seen annual growth of 6 percent a year (with some painful ups and downs along the way), post-1978 China saw average real growth of more than 9 percent a year with fewer and less painful ups and downs. In several peak years, the economy grew more than 13 percent. Per capita income has nearly quadrupled in the last 15 years, and a few analysts are even predicting that the Chinese economy will be larger than that of the United States in about 20 years. Such growth compares very favorably to that of the "Asian tigers"--Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan Province of China--which, as a group, had an average growth rate of 7-8 percent over the last 15 years.
How could we possibly say that a left wing economy could be successful when it's market reforms are the only things that gave it some success? 

It is important to note that even per Pro, China's economy has enlarged, but has not actually become a high-class economy with a good standard of living (there is a difference):

The country's economy expanded at an average rate of 9.5 percent over the last 40 years, far beyond the world economy's 2.9 percent in the same period. And its GDP rose from 367.9 billion yuan in 1978 to 82.71 trillion yuan in 2017, while its per-capita GDP saw a 22.8-fold growth to 59,660 yuan over the same time span, lifting China from the notch of world's low-income to middle-income countries.
I'm going to ignore the rest of Pro's stats here because they are really just stats demonstrating China's economic success. Obviously a middle-income country with a large economy is hardly objectively successful. 

and lets not forget which state has the most prosperous economy is massachsetts the most liberal state https://usprosperity.net/   https://www.homesnacks.net/most-liberal-states-in-america-1219947/
 
Pro here cites a source for Massachusetts' liberalism, (which itself is far from reputable) but does not cite a source for Massachusetts economic success, and offers no reason for me to believe that this is anything except correlation which does not equal causation. 

That's all for now. 

SOURCES:
[2] : World Bank, OECD, World Economic Forum, Fraser Institute, KOF Institute of Switzerland and WSJ. Y axis shows relative ranking on a 0-100 scale with 100 = highest rank except for bank asset concentration, which is measured as % of industry assets for the 5 largest banks. JPMAM, 2019.
[3] Public Ownership components of Product Market Regulation State Control (PMR), OECD 2013.

Round 3
Published:
Sweden, China , Uraguay , and Massachusetts all economies governed either by dirigisme or keynesianism and they work oh and portugal which used left wing policies to salvage a broke n economyhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/portugal-s-socialist-miracle-offers-lessons-for-a-divided-spain-1.4038021
Published:
Rebuttals

I have already responded to Pro's Sweden, China, and Massachusetts arguments. Pro has provided no evidence for Uruguay's success. 

Firstly, it is immoral to introduce new arguments in the final round. 

Secondly, the source Pro cites in an opinion piece which itself cites no source or study on Portugal's economic success whatsoever. Pro has no argument for Portugal's economic success other than pure assertion. 

Why Vote Con? (Summary)

In this debate, Pro has: 

- Plagiarized his opening statement and his data on China by failing to use quotation marks 
- Used almost zero arguments of his own, opting instead to make general claims which make it impossible to figure out which claims his source concerns and which arguments to respond to 
-  Used plenty of un-understandable S&G mistakes, such as 

How am i supposed to prove my point unless i quote a source? say just look at sweden? high taxes big welfare state strong unions ? Norway has state industry and a huge sovereign wealth fund, all nordic states have huge bureaucracies 1 in 3 people in denamrk and norway work for the state? I've already proven these points and there is lots of proof this system works
and
Sweden, China , Uraguay , and Massachusetts all economies governed either by dirigisme or keynesianism and they work oh and portugal which used left wing policies to salvage a broke n economy
which detract from the readability of the debate 
- Dropped my entire negative case on the failures of the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and my argument weighing the impacts of Sweden's economic policy to determine it cannot be defined as left-wing 
- Dropped all my rebuttals in Round 2 
- And published new arguments in the final round, which is generally considered poor conduct. 

Thank you Pro for this debate. Vote Con! 
Added:
Two immediate things...
First, if using more than a couple lines from anyone else, put it into block quotation so the division is clear.
Second, as explained in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt):
Plagiarism
Unless clearly indicated otherwise, you are taking credit for writing anything you post.
There are only three strict rules on avoiding accidental plagiarism:
If you copy/paste anything, put “quotation marks” around it, and provide a link.
If paraphrasing (putting what they said into your own words), still provide a link.
If no link is available, still give credit. Example: “Descartes put it best with his we think therefore we are.”
Author consent, does not dismiss plagiarism. Accidentally plagiarizing does not dismiss plagiarism. It not being many words copied does not dismiss plagiarism. Even common knowledge, does not dismiss plagiarism. Just follow the above rules.
As a debater, if you spot it, give the audience proof of the crime; then continue your case.
As a voter, automatically give conduct to the side which did not commit plagiarism (and state “plagiarism” in your RFD), then assign a penalty to arguments based on the degree of cheating. A minor slip up (like borrowing a line of rhetoric to emphasize a point) is wholly forgivable, building a case reliant upon plagiarized material (such as instead of making your own argument, merely copy/pasting one from Stephen Hawking) is not.
#6
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
just tagging you
Contender
#5
Added:
Oh. How do I know you then?
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @armoredcat
I don't know who that is.
#3
Added:
Hey! Are you jzonda?
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @armoredcat
Hola, Mr. Cat!
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Plagiarism. And yes, you are supposed to use evidence but to then give your own interpretation; even just paraphrasing it would be preferable.
Were that not enough, the debate turned into con teaching pro how to construct arguments; so literally schooling him.
That said, I'll provide a little more detail in case trying this topic (or a similar one) again... The topic was basically a truism, but to cast a serious vote on it, I would need to treat it as possible for Left Wing Economies to generally fail to work (presumably this debate would only be initiated based on someone saying they outright do not work). Con did a good job Kritiking this, to mean pro needs to show they generally work, not merely by chance they worked in a single location. Pro did fight back a little on this, but included muddying the waters on what makes an economic policy considered left wing (a weak kritik against his own case being able to have meaning); which denies him the ability to reach minimal BoP.
And of course I've given some more feedback in the comment section: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1593/comment_links/22399